Legal Research
Cases
Krotiris v The Queen

Krotiris v The Queen

Case [2012] NSWCCA 28 21 May 2012

Criminal Liability

Discount for Guilty Plea

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Krotiris v R [2012] NSWCCA 28
Hearing dates: 2 March 2012
Decision date: 21 May 2012
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Rothman J at [2]
Davies J at [5]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - co-offenders - sentenced by different judges - parity principle - roles of offenders - discount for guilty plea - substituted offence on new indictment - plea after voir dire.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: Dwayhi v R; Bechara v R [2011] NSWCCA 67
R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117
R v Sukkar [2011] NSWCCA 140
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Rae v R [2011] NSWCCA 211
Sullivan v R; Skillin v R [2008] NSWCCA 296
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Steven Krotiris (AKA Steven Pambris)
Crown
Representation: Counsel:
D O'Neil (Applicant)
J Girdham (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): CCA 2009/12000
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2011-05-13 00:00:00

Before:

Cogswell DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/12000

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Davies J.

ROTHMAN J: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Davies J in draft. I agree with the orders proposed by his Honour.

On the issue of parity, I agree with the reasons of Davies J.

For my own part, I am not sure that a 5 percent discount adequately reflects the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty in this case, but I am not convinced one way or the other. However, I am sure that no lesser sentence than that imposed is warranted: s 6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

DAVIES J: On 19 January 2011 the Applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to the offence of stealing from a dwelling house contrary to s 148 of the Crimes Act 1900. On 13 May 2011 he was sentenced by Judge Cogswell SC to a period of imprisonment of 2 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months to expire on 12 July 2012. The Sentencing Judge took into account an offence of attempted break and enter with intent to steal on a Form 1.

The primary offence and the Form 1 offence were committed in close proximity, and were committed in company with one Andrew Schoultz. Mr Schoultz was sentenced by Judge King SC on 24 September 2009 to a period of imprisonment of 2 years with a non-parole period of 1 year. Judge King took into account 2 offences on a Form 1, being the offence of attempted break and enter with intent to steal, and a further offence that the offender was in possession of a housebreaking implement without lawful excuse.

The sole ground of appeal contained in the Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal was an asserted lack of parity with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Krotiris v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Krotiris v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 28
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 28
Decision Date: 21 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Krotiris was convicted of drug-related offences and sentenced by one judge, while his co-offender, who was charged with the same offences, was sentenced by another judge after a voir dire. Krotiris appealed against his sentence on the basis that it was excessive and should have been reduced in line with the sentence of his co-offender, pursuant to the parity principle. The appeal raised issues concerning the application of the parity principle in sentencing co-offenders, the appropriate discount for a guilty plea, and the treatment of a substituted offence on a new indictment when the plea was entered after a voir dire.

The court considered the roles of the offenders in the commission of the offences and the discounts available for a guilty plea. It found that the parity principle could only be applied where the offenders were similarly situated, and in this case, there were significant differences in their roles. The court also noted that the co-offender's plea was entered before the voir dire, which entitled him to a greater discount than Krotiris. Regarding the substituted offence, the court held that the plea taken after the voir dire should be treated as if it related to the original charges, and the appropriate discount applied accordingly.

Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence imposed on Krotiris was not excessive and did not breach the parity principle. The appeal was dismissed, and Krotiris's sentence was upheld. The court's reasoning focused on the individual circumstances of each offender and the appropriate application of sentencing principles in light of those circumstances.

Orders